A Nevada judge rebuked former Las Vegas Raiders head coach Jon Gruden this week for “delays” and “noncooperation” in sharing materials central to his $150 million lawsuit accusing NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, or someone acting on Goodell’s behalf, of tortiously interfering with his Raiders contract.

On Monday, 8th Judicial District Judge Joe Hardy expressed bewilderment as to why Gruden “wanted discovery to proceed expeditiously” in a case currently scheduled to begin trial on May 24, 2027, but he has not turned over documents necessary for the discovery process to play out.

“Gruden has not complied with the rules, he has not shown cause, let alone good cause, for lack of compliance in Gruden’s delays and noncooperation,” Hardy said.

According to a courtroom transcript obtained by Sportico, attorney Mark Hutchinson, on behalf of the NFL, told Hardy, “We just haven’t had a single document produced in response to our document requests, which were served [on Gruden] in January.” Hutchinson added that Gruden “hasn’t explained basic things like even the opportunities/relationships that he allegedly lost to support this $150 million that he’s seeking.”

That sentiment prompted Hardy to reflect, “Given the alleged damages here, I’m puzzled, I guess, is probably a neutral way to put it, at the lack of diligence, I suppose.”

Gruden’s attorney, Adam Hosmer-Henner, argued the NFL has asked for too many materials.

“The position taken by [the NFL] was that every communication that [Gruden] sent could be relevant because it would show a pattern of him sending other embarrassing” materials, Hosmer-Henner asserted. “Our position,” Hosmer-Henner maintained, was “we object because we don’t think that the scope of this case involves every embarrassing email or text that Jon Gruden ever sent.”

Gruden’s emails are, of course, central to the case.

In 2021, Gruden stepped down as the Raiders’ head coach—and walked away from about $60 million remaining on his contract—amid a scandal over emails he wrote as an ESPN employee in 2011. Gruden claims he lost endorsement deals, too.

The scandal surfaced when The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal obtained and published stories regarding the emails, which contained racist, misogynistic, transphobic and homophobic statements as well as offensive remarks about Goodell. The emails were sent to then-Washington Commanders president Bruce Allen.

The theory advanced by Gruden is that Goodell or someone in the commissioner’s office leaked the emails to damage Gruden’s reputation. The theory also posits the NFL obtained the emails as part of its workplace misconduct investigation into then-Washington owner Dan Snyder.

The NFL denies it leaked emails and maintains Gruden doesn’t have evidence to prove it occurred. The league also points out it wouldn’t need to engage in subterfuge to oust Gruden, as the league constitution gives Goodell the authority to “cancel” a coach’s contract with a team when the coach is guilty of conduct detrimental.

Even if a leak did occur, it’s not clear it would amount to a violation of law. Emails sent between an ESPN employee and an NFL team employee are unlikely to be designated as confidential or privileged, and there might not be any duty on the part of Goodell to secure those emails. In that same vein, the NFL has a pending appeal before the Supreme Court of Nevada in which it argues that the case should be dismissed via Nevada’s Anti-SLAPP statute, which protects the exercise of free speech. The NFL has also stressed that to the extent Gruden’s reputation is harmed by the emails, he wrote them.

Through Hosmer-Henner, Gruden argues that the league is trying to make him produce numerous emails to try to embarrass him and that a protective order would be appropriate to ensure some documents are classified as confidential.

Hutchinson, meanwhile, insists “Mr. Gruden wants to designate as confidential and shield from public disclosure really every document that he thinks is either embarrassing or annoying.”

By the end of the hearing, Hardy granted the NFL’s motion to compel in part, as he also agreed with Gruden on the need for a protective order and the parties conferring further about materials.

The NFL previously sought to dismiss the lawsuit on a separate ground: Gruden contractually accepted the league’s arbitration system, which is detailed in the league constitution, as a condition of his Raiders employment contract.

In 2024, a majority of three Nevada Supreme Court justices agreed with the NFL that the case should be dismissed to arbitration, especially since Gruden, an adult and advised by representatives, signed the Raiders employment contract.

But last year five justices on the same court ruled that Gruden, as a former employee, isn’t bound by the league constitution, and they believed the arbitration clause was an unconscionable take-it-or-leave-it provision since it was non-negotiable. The reasoning was similar to that offered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit last year in denying the NFL a dismissal of Brian Flores’ lawsuit to arbitration.